Saturday, 5 July 2014

Liberalism Spells the Demise of Morality

The ideology underlying liberalism is that one should seek one’s own ends in whatever way one sees fit. This has lead to the demise of morality in the postmodern society and the silencing of anyone who speaks against it. Liberalism itself is devoid of a moral foundation, producing a society that is divided by conflicting self-interests of different social groups because it is against the categorical imperative of respecting all others.
Postmodernism purports that there is no universal truth, but that there are many truths. Therefore, it follows from postmodern logic that these truths depend on what is perceived by the individual since everything is an illusion. If there are really no universal truths, why should such a statement be taken seriously? 

Postmodernists argue that postmodernism is legitimate because it purports there are different perspectives that determine what is true. Equating truth to perception is implying that truth is relative, not absolute. However, truth cannot be relative to be rightfully called truth. Equating truth to perception is a ploy to deny the existence of truth with the motive gaining one’s self-interests.

Morality is the categorical imperative which confers binding universal and objective obligations on all individuals that arises from one’s inherent human dignity.  Such dignity can neither be taken nor given by one’s culture, society, family, government or any other human institution. Therefore, morality is not dependent on social or cultural contexts but possessed by virtue of each individual being created equal to all others. Its purpose is to ensure respect for all other human beings, not merely to prevent people from hurting others. To respect others is to not use people as ends to a means, but means in themselves. To use people as ends to a means is not merely ‘disrespect’ but exploitation, thereby breaking the categorical imperative.  
Unlike the categorical imperative, postmodernism provides no foundation for the moral logic of universal and objective obligations. By purporting that morality is up the individual to determine, respect for the categorical imperative of obligations arising from equal human dignity is eroded. This has provides groups who disdain the categorical imperative of obligations a pretext to justify their actions which break the categorical imperative.

Political correctness imposes on all individuals a set of standards which ensure that no group is offended by compelling all individuals to embrace all ideologies and beliefs. Offence is anything that is opposed to the beliefs, actions or goals of those worthy of politically correct protection: those that tolerate all other beliefs or have common beliefs with those who claim to tolerate all other beliefs.

Political correctness is based on the idea that moral right and wrong is determined by the individual. This has lead to the quest for tolerance which seeks to ensure that all individuals have their freedom to have their own opinion, view and attitudes as long as it is not deemed to offend that of others, especially those deemed to be minorities such as women, homosexuals, refugees, those of lower socioeconomic status and Muslims. The case often made against political correctness is that it hinders free speech, a right that all individuals should be able to exercise without fear. However, it can be argued in addition to this, that political correctness erodes the categorical imperative of obligations.

Political correctness teaches people that morality is determined by people, rather than existent in itself by attempting to deny the existence of the categorical imperative. By preaching the need to accept all other beliefs, it provides a pretext for hatred and slander of those who act or speak against liberal political agendas: those who believe a categorical imperative must be adhered to. The irony of political correctness is that it forces conformity or acceptance of liberal political agendas without any tolerance for those against it. Given the stifling lack of ability to act against anything which offends others, political correctness may well legitimise, for example, the “right” to paedophilia and the “right” to bestiality.

Australian culture is built on the values of tolerance and egalitarianism. Tolerance is not love and acceptance as political correctness likes to pretend but rather the indifference towards immoral acts and the silencing of criticism against such acts, on the grounds that it is the individual rather than a categorical imperative who determines morality. This explains why social sensitivity determined by offensiveness to social groups, rather than the morality and ethics of the issue.

Egalitarianism equates fairness to justice. Fairness is merely about equal treatment of people for doing the same thing. Justice, however, seeks to ensure that any wrongs committed are rectified and not merely treated the same as that committed by another. Egalitarianism has be used to justify the cynicism of the Australian majority towards the relatively high economic achievement of certain ethnic minorities, by legitimising the argument that high economic achievement by ‘others’ is against the ideals of equality, and therefore an injustice.

Academia, the media and the political arena make political correctness a “moral” goal to be achieved in the name of equality and inclusiveness. That anyone who dares to conquer liberalism is deemed dangerous shows the ideological chauvinism of those of who judge people for fighting against liberalism. This shows the extreme hypocrisy and dishonesty of those who preach tolerance but dictate how society should behave.

Hypocrisy and dishonesty is the core of Australian culture. Such moral hypocrisy and dishonesty lead to moral perversion by deceiving many into believing the there is no such thing as moral obligation but only rights. The fight for rights has divided society in which people blame others for their plight. Owing to the rampant minoritarianism, those social groups which perceive themselves to be marginalised are able to escape moral responsibility for their own actions, while those who do not are held to be morally accountable for all the actions and plight of those who do. Such ruthless individualism has destroyed community.